BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: IMINXTC on August 12, 2023, 07:28:02 PM
-
Perhaps the Inevitable social ostracization & purging of certain unwanted types. It's already here and has very little to do with Christ or the Gospel - except for His name. Making it increasingly hard to understand salvation.
For openers?
-
Indeed, the tenets of salvation and judgment are the domain of the Church - not political ideals or nationalism.
-
Perhaps if the church had worked on being the church instead of seeking political power and change of hearts through power it wouldn’t be an issue today
-
Indeed, the tenets of salvation and judgment are the domain of the Church - not political ideals or nationalism.
As history has shown us so many times, it's a toxic cocktail.
-
Could you guys elaborate? Who are these people and what exactly are they doing?
-
Having read the OT how can one conclude God does not want His people in government?
-
Same way I know He doesn’t want a theocracy
There is no problem with Christians in secular government but God has no thoughts of a theocracy now
-
Could you guys elaborate? Who are these people and what exactly are they doing?
There are schwak of them in US government already. Marjorie Taylor Greene openly states as such. I'm pretty sure Mike Flynn falls in that category, but he seems to be going completely off the rails.
Christian nationalism became an instant bedfellow of the New Apostolic Reformation adherents. Coupled with the "Seven Mountain Mandate" suggesting the Christianity should be the dominating influence in the various areas/spheres of human activity.
-
Could you guys elaborate? Who are these people and what exactly are they doing?
1. The rule of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries, not very Christian.
2. Let us pray in this hour that nothing can divide us, and that God will help us against the Devil! Almighty Lord, bless our fight!'
-- Adolph Hitler to the SA in 1930.
3. Watched the 2020 election with open mouth. Paula White, the spiritual advisor of Trump in the White House.
-
Having read the OT how can one conclude God does not want His people in government?
1 Samuel 8:6 - 7
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord.
7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king."
It's fine for Christians to be in government. It's not fine for Christians to repeat this rejection, and this sin often lies at the foundation of theocratic movements, legislating by "Christian morality", etc. For example, by appealing to the OT and pushing aside Jesus for nationalistic sentiments predicated on an ancient society millennia removed from the present day.
Also, we aren't living in the OT.
Also, we aren't ancient Israelites.
-
Thanks for your replies.
The problem I have is that the term Christian Nationalism has been used for a catch all for so many things and people that others may not like that it's lost any sort of coherent definition.
In other words it's become a sort of catch all phrase.
Personally I think that Christians should be involved in all aspects of society and governments while at the same time I absolutely believe in freedom of religion. Just saying. :)
-
It has never had a coherent definition
-
Having read the OT how can one conclude God does not want His people in government?
1 Samuel 8:6 - 7
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord.
7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king."
It's fine for Christians to be in government. It's not fine for Christians to repeat this rejection, and this sin often lies at the foundation of theocratic movements, legislating by "Christian morality", etc. For example, by appealing to the OT and pushing aside Jesus for nationalistic sentiments predicated on an ancient society millennia removed from the present day.
Also, we aren't living in the OT.
Also, we aren't ancient Israelites.
A king is not the only form of government. We are God's people.
Exo 18:13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening. ....
Exo 18:18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
Exo 18:19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
Exo 18:20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
Exo 18:21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
Exo 18:22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.
Exo 18:23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.
Exo 18:24 So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said.
Exo 18:25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
Exo 18:26 And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.
-
We are not "God's people" in the way in which the nation of Israel was under the Old Covenant.
Under the New Covenant, we are not subjects; we are joint-heirs, adopted sons and daughters of the only King. We are not governed as civil governments are; instead, we are governed by the Holy Spirit in direct communication and interaction with our spirits. As such, we have a much higher standard that civil government; we are called to be holy.
-
We are not "God's people" in the way in which the nation of Israel was under the Old Covenant.
... we are called to be holy.
Jews are also called upon to be holy, though.
Lev 19:2 “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy."
Exodus 19: And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation....
Exodus 22 You are to be My holy people.
Lev 11:44 For I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, because I am holy.
Lev 11:45 For I am the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt so that I would be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy
Lev 20 You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
Deuteronomy 14 for you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD has chosen you to be a people for His prized possession out of all the peoples on the face of the earth.
Deut 7 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His prized possession out of all peoples on the face of the earth.
Now, I agree that Christianity approaches the matter differently because it's the more "universal" religion. Christians are not called upon to build a theological state (although a small minority find the idea compelling?) On the other hand, I do feel that as people of faith, we are under the obligation to make this world a place in which God can dwell. That requires not only our individual acts, but also our communal acts. Because we live in a democracy, we are therefore obligated to cast our votes for the candidates that best reflect all of our values, including our religious ones.
-
Why divide God's people? We agree on many points.
Gal_3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal_3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo_19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
-
There is now, and there has only always been, one "people of God." Not Jews, not Gentiles, but those that believe and obey God by faith.
The nation of Israel in the Old Testament had a specific and singular purpose; to protect and be the bloodline through which Messiah would come. The "people of God" existed long before Abraham and long after the "nation" was scattered in 70 A.D.
That being said, the thread is about "Christian Nationalism," and saying that someone is of "the people of God" is not the same as saying there is an earthly kingdom of God, when Jesus was absolutely against that.
The people of God exist under every form of government on the planet, including under North Korean dictatorship, Chinese oppression, or United States dystopianism.
-
A king is not the only form of government. We are God's people.
Exo 18:13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening. ....
Exo 18:18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
Exo 18:19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
Exo 18:20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
Exo 18:21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
Exo 18:22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.
Exo 18:23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.
Exo 18:24 So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said.
Exo 18:25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
Exo 18:26 And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.
In Exodus, Israel is following God's instruction. In 1 Samuel, Israel explicitly rejected God and demanded an earthly king. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Of course, there are many forms of government. What does that have to do with the inappropriateness of Christian theocracy?
-
In Exodus, Israel is following God's instruction. In 1 Samuel, Israel explicitly rejected God and demanded an earthly king.
The issue wasn't in wanting an earthly king. Deuteronomy 17 specifically addresses this:
When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you.
And there are even special laws, that only apply to a king:
“And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.
The issue was that they asked for a king before God was ready to provide.
The book of Judges says multiple times that it was problematic that the country had no king:
In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes. (Judges 17 and 21)
And no king means no royal line. No conquests of king David, no Temple built by king Solomon. No royal line also means no messiah.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Of course, there are many forms of government. What does that have to do with the inappropriateness of Christian theocracy?
I never called for a Christian theocracy. I pointed out two things: That Israel did have a theocracy (and will again!); and that people of faith should vote for candidates that reflect their values.
-
How could a Christian theocracy be inappropriate?
Using the term Christian in the most Christian way possible. Not christian in name only.
I dont remember when Israel became a state, i was 2. Many Christians were surprised The Lord did not return then . On to 7 years later the day of rest. how about 8 the number of new beginnings. I do remember the family talk from the mid 50s . The Christian circles around were consumed with rapture. Mom and Dad talking ... Jesus will return soonso the boys (my younger brothers) will not be needing higher education. Should the Lord tarry the girls will marry. Christians pulled out of public office waiting for rapture . Look at what we have today? As Christians we should be outstanding citizens, if God calls any of us to 'public' office we should obey.
The parable of Luke 19 .. tells us to occupy. Occupying is not waiting but being busy. Understanding first being busy with what we tend to call the Lord's work. There are other things , to be done, some as simple as washing dishes others tons more complicated. Not unlike owning and operating this forum. Raising kids, teaching, medicine . Who among us would not want a doctor who sincerely prays in the name of Jesus before surgery? Why not a school board member who does the same?
-
There is now, and there has only always been, one "people of God." Not Jews, not Gentiles, but those that believe and obey God by faith.
The nation of Israel in the Old Testament had a specific and singular purpose; to protect and be the bloodline through which Messiah would come. The "people of God" existed long before Abraham and long after the "nation" was scattered in 70 A.D.
That being said, the thread is about "Christian Nationalism," and saying that someone is of "the people of God" is not the same as saying there is an earthly kingdom of God, when Jesus was absolutely against that.
The people of God exist under every form of government on the planet, including under North Korean dictatorship, Chinese oppression, or United States dystopianism.
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
-
There is now, and there has only always been, one "people of God." Not Jews, not Gentiles, but those that believe and obey God by faith.
The nation of Israel in the Old Testament had a specific and singular purpose; to protect and be the bloodline through which Messiah would come. The "people of God" existed long before Abraham and long after the "nation" was scattered in 70 A.D.
That being said, the thread is about "Christian Nationalism," and saying that someone is of "the people of God" is not the same as saying there is an earthly kingdom of God, when Jesus was absolutely against that.
The people of God exist under every form of government on the planet, including under North Korean dictatorship, Chinese oppression, or United States dystopianism.
Agree for the most part. The Word tells us the Kingdom of God is righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. He sent the Holy Ghost to those of us on earth. How could He be absolutely against that?
-
As Christians we should be outstanding citizens, if God calls any of us to 'public' office we should obey.
Agree! Jeremiah 29:7 ... seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.
-
The often invoked, decades old (and questionable) mantra
that America was founded on Christian principles flies in the face of both historical reality and the Constution, but has been the rationale behind many efforts to establish supposed Christian tenets as law.
The Christian principle is actually Christ and His salvation.
Nowhere is the Church commanded to seek rulership of the secular wiorld, while efforts to preserve Christan "culture" is commendable, and needful.
A large contingent of politicized American voters are rallying behind a move to disband the constitution in favor of the establishment of humanly devised Church laws.
Danger!
-
Same way I know He doesn’t want a theocracy
There is no problem with Christians in secular government but God has no thoughts of a theocracy now
When did He tell you that?
Not thinking of a theocracy by force but by growing Romans 14:17
-
Same way I know He doesn’t want a theocracy
There is no problem with Christians in secular government but God has no thoughts of a theocracy now
When did He tell you that?
"Render unto Ceasar"
-
Same way I know He doesn’t want a theocracy
There is no problem with Christians in secular government but God has no thoughts of a theocracy now
When did He tell you that?
Not thinking of a theocracy by force but by growing Romans 14:17
“My kingdom is not of this world…”
-
Same way I know He doesn’t want a theocracy
There is no problem with Christians in secular government but God has no thoughts of a theocracy now
When did He tell you that?
Not thinking of a theocracy by force but by growing Romans 14:17
“My kingdom is not of this world…”
What do the Scriptures tell us His Kingdom is? They also tell us where His Kingdom is.
(Rom 14:17) For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Luk_17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
-
“My kingdom is not of this world…”
When the people saw the sign that Jesus had performed, they began to say, “Truly this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." Then Jesus, realizing that they were about to come and make Him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by Himself. (John 6:14-15)
-
How could a Christian theocracy be inappropriate?
Because it's not possible to have a truly Christian theocracy prior to the return of Christ. History demonstrates this over, and over, and over again. Heck, Christians can't even organise themselves on Twitter.
Besides, I'd be among the first stoned, so I have a personal interest in a Christian theocracy not happening.
-
Having never looked into anything about Christian Nationalism I know nothing about it as a movement or political entity. I would not belong to such a group. I guess a good term to describe what i am posting about is growing the Body of Christ which IMO will saturate God's earth.
-
In Exodus, Israel is following God's instruction. In 1 Samuel, Israel explicitly rejected God and demanded an earthly king.
The issue wasn't in wanting an earthly king. Deuteronomy 17 specifically addresses this:
When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you.
And there are even special laws, that only apply to a king:
“And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.
The issue was that they asked for a king before God was ready to provide.
The book of Judges says multiple times that it was problematic that the country had no king:
In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes. (Judges 17 and 21)
And no king means no royal line. No conquests of king David, no Temple built by king Solomon. No royal line also means no messiah.
That's right, yes. I was more concerned with the rejection than the particulars of it being over a king. (Israel wanted a King too early; certain Christians want theocracy too early.)
I never called for a Christian theocracy. I pointed out two things: That Israel did have a theocracy (and will again!); and that people of faith should vote for candidates that reflect their values.
Christ's rule is also a theocracy, and I don't have a problem with that. It's the "in the meantime" theocracies that I take issue with. But also, I was replying to Rebecca and I'm not sure if wires got crossed somewhere.
-
It's the "in the meantime" theocracies that I take issue with.
Oh, no argument. The only theocracy worth following (that wasn't in biblical times of course) will be in the messianic era. On this we can wholeheartedly agree.
-
How could a Christian theocracy be inappropriate?
Because it's not possible to have a truly Christian theocracy prior to the return of Christ. History demonstrates this over, and over, and over again. Heck, Christians can't even organise themselves on Twitter.
Besides, I'd be among the first stoned, so I have a personal interest in a Christian theocracy not happening.
Well said and sadly funny as all get out ;D... but i believe we can unite in Him. Over looking dumb contentions we have with each other not looking at our differences but looking to Him our Deliver ,Salvation, King, Lord.etc
-
How could a Christian theocracy be inappropriate?
Because it's not possible to have a truly Christian theocracy prior to the return of Christ. History demonstrates this over, and over, and over again. Heck, Christians can't even organise themselves on Twitter.
Besides, I'd be among the first stoned, so I have a personal interest in a Christian theocracy not happening.
Well said and sadly funny as all get out ;D... but i believe we can unite in Him. Over looking dumb contentions we have with each other not looking at our differences but looking to Him our Deliver ,Salvation, King, Lord.etc
We can and we will -- just not in this age.
-
i believe we can unite in Him.
You guys can't even unite on this message board. :o
-
i believe we can unite in Him.
You guys can't even unite on this message board. :o
When was the last time Judaism was in total agreement?
We people are a real mess across the board.
-
i believe we can unite in Him.
You guys can't even unite on this message board. :o
Well, yeah. There is that.
-
i believe we can unite in Him.
You guys can't even unite on this message board. :o
Well, yeah. There is that.
When we accept that as "the Truth' what are we saying about the prayer Of Jesus in John 17? Could, would, should His prayer not be answered in the affirmative. Our pride often gets the better of us.
-
When was the last time Judaism was in total agreement?
I have no illusions of a Jewish theocracy prior to the messianic era. You think Christians can unite. I'm skeptical.
-
When was the last time Judaism was in total agreement?
I have no illusions of a Jewish theocracy prior to the messianic era. You think Christians can unite. I'm skeptical.
If we could take our eyes off each other and look to Jesus instead, yes we could. Staying within the bounds of Christianity while embracing our differences we could but we are prideful.
-
If we could take our eyes off each other and look to Jesus instead, yes we could. Staying within the bounds of Christianity while embracing our differences we could but we are prideful.
Ehhh maybe. But you're discounting human nature. Different people have different ideas of Who God is and what He is like. Even in the same religion.
-
Throughout recorded history, man has proven himself a poor steward of what God has entrusted to him, and incapable of self-governance without discord, malevolence and corruption. But in the coming messianic kingdom, all the Lord's people will be united as one, and finally enjoy a reign of righteousness, peace, justice, and tranquility.
-
But in the coming messianic kingdom, all the Lord's people will be united as one, and finally enjoy a reign of righteousness, peace, justice, and tranquility.
From a Jewish prayer said thrice daily-
We put our hope in You, O Lord our God, to soon see the glory of Your strength, to remove all idols from the Earth, and to completely cut off all false gods; to repair the world, under Your rule. And all living flesh will call Your name, and for all the wicked of the Earth will turn to You. May all the world’s inhabitants recognize and know that to You every knee must bend and every tongue must swear loyalty. Before You, O Lord, our God, may all bow down, and give honor to Your precious name, and may all take upon themselves the yoke of Your rule. And may You reign over them soon and forever and always. Because all rule is Yours alone, and You will rule in honor forever and ever. As it is written in Your Torah: “The Lord will reign forever and ever.” And it is said: “The Lord will be Ruler over the whole Earth, and on that day, God will be One, and God’s name will be One.
-
If we could take our eyes off each other and look to Jesus instead, yes we could. Staying within the bounds of Christianity while embracing our differences we could but we are prideful.
We can't even decide on what the core tenets of Christianity is.
-
If we could take our eyes off each other and look to Jesus instead, yes we could. Staying within the bounds of Christianity while embracing our differences we could but we are prideful.
We can't even decide on what the core tenets of Christianity is.
Shame isn't it? Wish i understood the true reason why, all i can think of is we want our beliefs to be the right ONE.
-
.
Shame isn't it? Wish i understood the true reason why, all i can think of is we want our beliefs to be the right ONE.
[/quote]Which is why a Christian theocracy would be a disaster. Who would be the arbiter?
-
Which is why a Christian theocracy would be a disaster. Who would be the arbiter?
Ding ding ding we have winner!
Political power wielded for the furtherance of a religion always turns ugly. Just ask the victims of the Inquisition. Or the Crusades.
-
Reading this thread , which is like so many in other forums, We again focus on "us" our differences. Which in turn steps around Jesus' prayer . .in part:
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
We cant, it will never happen, why bother, 'they' are wrong. They sprinkle, they drink wine , those people have music instruments in the church!, osas non osas, are this things the gospel ?
What do you think/believe the Gospel is?
For me John 3:16
Is there more yes, can not the simple gospel be a building block He is the chief corner stone. Not every stone is exactly like the others. Some are foundation, lintel, some for their beauty, some for strength, some for counter tops! Yet together the house is built.
Some christians here dont agree with some of my thoughts/ideas, but yet they are brothers in Christ.
-
Not every stone is exactly like the others. Some are foundation, lintel, some for their beauty, some for strength, some for counter tops! Yet together the house is built.
I don't disagree with this concept. In Judaism we have the same concept. There is a sermon in the Talmud (one of those non binding parts added for spice! From another discussion) which discusses the symbolism of the species we wave on the Sukkot holiday in fulfillment of Lev 23:40 "And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days."
The etrog represents a person who studies Torah and fulfills the mitzvot, the lulav represents one who studies Torah but does not perform mitzvot, the myrtle represents one who fulfills mitzvot but does not study Torah, and the willow represents a Jew who neither studies Torah nor observes mitzvot.
And all these people have a place in Judaism. They are all Jews.
But nobody would suggest that a modern day theocracy should be created to bind all these Jews together. Rather, it is enough that we can all coexist and work together to better the world, each in their own way. Just as Christians can coexist with each other. Or the way Christians can coexist with Jews.
-
Nothing new about divide and conquer :)
-
Nothing new about divide and conquer :)
Nobody is dividing and nobody is conquering. People are different and believe different things.
-
Disagree nobody is dividing .
Agree People are different and believe different things.
-
Topic: The establishment of Christian law in or as part of secular government.
A state religion(?)
-
If someone is fine with me being world controller and the head of any theocratic institution then actually, I'm fine with that. I'd be overthrown pretty quickly though.
-
If someone is fine with me being world controller and the head of any theocratic institution then actually, I'm fine with that. I'd be overthrown pretty quickly though.
Not as long as you do what I say.
-
Topic: The establishment of Christian law in or as part of secular government.
A state religion(?)
We already have that in England and America for example.
William Blackstone made no secret about the fact that the Bible was used to create and codify laws and then the US constitutional tradition in the colonies and eventually the Constitution in 1787 were biblically based and also, naturally, the American legal system and laws.
Do you mean changing existing laws to be even more biblically based? I'm a bit confused here. What specific countries are we talking about or do you mean in a general sense that isn't geographically based?
Edit to add: Separation of Church and State is Christian/Biblically based. "Render unto Caeser" and all that, yeah?
-
If someone is fine with me being world controller and the head of any theocratic institution then actually, I'm fine with that. I'd be overthrown pretty quickly though.
It would be epic even if short-lived.
-
Christian law
What is "Christian law"? Or do you mean "biblical law"?
-
.
Shame isn't it? Wish i understood the true reason why, all i can think of is we want our beliefs to be the right ONE.
Which is why a Christian theocracy would be a disaster. Who would be the arbiter?
People look to people not to Christ . My dream that one day we people could all get along will most likely never be the reality. Christ should be the arbiter. Let the old lady dream :) The world reality my great grand children are growing up in is mostly completely anitchrist. Praise the Lord they are in Christian homes.
-
If someone is fine with me being world controller and the head of any theocratic institution then actually, I'm fine with that. I'd be overthrown pretty quickly though.
Not as long as you do what I say.
Ohhh shadow theocracy
-
Ohhh shadow theocracy
There needs to be Jews involved. Otherwise it's not a proper conspiracy.
-
Will you be our TokenJew(TM), our BankerMediaMogulControllerJew(TM), or our Friendly Neighborhood Beat Cop who brings us knishes and strudel Jew? And latkes…. Don’t forget the latkes! Oy vey!
-
Ohhh shadow theocracy
There needs to be Jews involved. Otherwise it's not a proper conspiracy.
Brilliant.
-
Will you be our TokenJew(TM), our BankerMediaMogulControllerJew(TM), or our Friendly Neighborhood Beat Cop who brings us knishes and strudel Jew? And latkes…. Don’t forget the latkes! Oy vey!
Plus I have the Space Laser (TM).
-
I had almost forgotten about the verboten space laser!
-
I had almost forgotten about the verboten space laser!
What do you think started all those fires in Hawaii?
-
Jooooooooooooooooosss !!!!
The truth always comes out!😱
-
I had almost forgotten about the verboten space laser!
What do you think started all those fires in Hawaii?
There are people pushing this already - not necessarily Jews doing it - but directed energy weapons.
-
Well, I've had trouble keeping up here (work & travel) but I am now basically resigned to earnestly praying for Divine intervention in preserving our constitutional democracy which appears certainly vulnerable for the near future. My greatest fear concerns the large contigent of so-called believers who would easily support the overthrow of our constitution in the name of Christ.
-
I hear you, my left coast pilgrim. SomeSmartGuyTM said something about a kingdom and not of this world … if… they would have fought…
Yeah
Something like that
-
My greatest fear concerns the large contigent of so-called believers who would easily support the overthrow of our constitution in the name of Christ.
Tyranny is tyranny I suppose.
Right now in this country, I feel that it's more the secular and leftists who are ignoring our Constitution though.
-
Well, I've had trouble keeping up here (work & travel) but I am now basically resigned to earnestly praying for Divine intervention in preserving our constitutional democracy which appears certainly vulnerable for the near future. My greatest fear concerns the large contigent of so-called believers who would easily support the overthrow of our constitution in the name of Christ.
In America a president may serve 2 terms. Is that stated in the constitution or decided in a separate law? I asking because I think that when Trump is reelected he will try to change that law, like Putin and Xi did with the intent to run for a third, forth term.
-
It's in the 22 amendment to the US Constitution. But just as it was changed with the amendment it could theoretically be changed again.
I say theoretically because the process involves massive cooperation of both Fed and State ( two thirds of Congress and three fourth of the states? I think.) so I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.
-
When the word "hate" was added to a crime we saw a movement away from our
constitutional republic. The word hate is very subjective. What crimes are committed because the perpetrator loves the victim?
The left/liberal/democrat are eroding the Constitution like a cancer. Politics should not be a carer, but a service.
-
When the word "hate" was added to a crime we saw a movement away from our
constitutional republic. The word hate is very subjective. What crimes are committed because the perpetrator loves the victim?
The left/liberal/democrat are eroding the Constitution like a cancer. Politics should not be a carer, but a service.
interesting hill to plant your flag on, I beg you, please say more on this topic.
-
In the early years of the American republic, members of Congress met occasionally to resolve legislative matters, and once complete, went back to their farms. Today, people make a career of political office, typically using their position to benefit themselves. From pork barrel politics and influence peddling to insider trading and shady dealings with lobbyists. Many entrenched career politicians--particularly Senators, grow into feared, fat cat power brokers. Many are elected by those with deep pockets whose campaign contributions are viewed as an investment.
By and large, politics can be a very dirty business, and it's sad that so many career politicians make us expect scandal and corruption in elected public servants instead of being disappointed by it. I believe the very few honorable, idealistic candidates that still exist find after election that they are in a river with a strong current, and must either go along with the flow--and turn a blind eye to impropriety--or else make their way to the shore and get out. One day this planet will be ruled by a righteous, incorruptible King whose reign will be one of global peace and justice. Until then, we must accept the status quo and do what we can with our ballots.
-
When the word "hate" was added to a crime we saw a movement away from our
constitutional republic. The word hate is very subjective. What crimes are committed because the perpetrator loves the victim?
I think if the perpetrator's intent can be proved to be motivated by hatred of some group that the victim belongs to, it could be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. I don't think it's unConstitutional. Certainly none of the laws that reference it have been challenged on Constitutional grounds.
-
I asking because I think that when Trump is reelected he will try to change that law, like Putin and Xi did with the intent to run for a third, forth term.
I don't think Trump can win. Even if he does, he can't change the Constitution to allow him to run for a third term. He'd need 2/3 of Congress and 75% of the states to back him, which isn't happening in this universe.
-
One day this planet will be ruled by a righteous, incorruptible King whose reign will be one of global peace and justice. Until then, we must accept the status quo and do what we can with our ballots.
Can't argue with that.
-
When the word "hate" was added to a crime we saw a movement away from our
constitutional republic. The word hate is very subjective. What crimes are committed because the perpetrator loves the victim?
I think if the perpetrator's intent can be proved to be motivated by hatred of some group that the victim belongs to, it could be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. I don't think it's unConstitutional. Certainly none of the laws that reference it have been challenged on Constitutional grounds.
I see it as the beginning of the slide so to speak ... I am sure folks older then me have seen it sooner. In a way considering something a 'hate crime' comes against the 1 amendment . Seems labeling one a hater ones own words are used against them as evidence.
-
I just wonder how long it'll be before pastors are charged with hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin.
-
I just wonder how long it'll be before pastors are charged with hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin.
Ask Canada
-
I just wonder how long it'll be before pastors are charged with hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin.
Ask Canada
Yeah, I know how things are there. But we are approaching the point where it can conceivably happen here.
-
I see it as the beginning of the slide so to speak
Why? We take intent into consideration when charging crimes. A premediated murder is a higher crime than a spur of the moment killing, let alone an accidental one. Why can't we take motive into consideration for reasons like hate against a particular group?
In a way considering something a 'hate crime' comes against the 1 amendment . Seems labeling one a hater ones own words are used against them as evidence.
The First Amendment protects speech, not crime. The speech itself is not criminal. But if the speech proves intent for a crime, why shouldn't it be used against the criminal?
-
I just wonder how long it'll be before pastors are charged with hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin.
Protected by the Bill of Rights.
-
I just wonder how long it'll be before pastors are charged with hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin.
Ask Canada
Canada has no Bill of Rights.
-
Yeah, I know how things are there. But we are approaching the point where it can conceivably happen here.
Hire a good Constitutional lawyer. Mark Levin would do it pro bono I bet.
-
If it an be proven that someone attacked a Christian, Jew, Muslim, black person, white person etc strictly because they are one of these things then that is reason enough for harsher penalties.
Remember Auschwitz? How about The Elaine massacre? Look outside of America and down the long history of mans atrocities committed simply over racial, cultural and religious differences and it's easy to see why we need hate crime laws.
-
As long as I get to identify the group I want to protect and the group I want to punish, them I'm all for assuming that a crime victim's identified group and the alleged perpetrator's intent makes the crime victim more dead, more raped, more battered, or more tortured.
-
I just wonder how long it'll be before pastors are charged with hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin.
Protected by the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is an idea or a piece of paper. If not respected they have no value. Same idea as the Order of Protection that only works for those who screwed up but are normally law abiding.
Do you really not see the erosion ? to the Bill of Rights which you sound like you support as i do. The guy who did win but was arrested for joking about covid 19 .
"Waylon was taken to jail and booked, though the absurd charge was dropped when a prosecutor reviewed the case. But when Waylon brought a civil-rights lawsuit, the deputy responsible for the arrest was granted qualified immunity by the district court. To add insult to injury, the court also said that Waylon didn’t have any free speech rights to make a joke in the first place. The 5th Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court, which will now fully consider Waylon’s civil-rights lawsuit." erosion that he was arrested in the first place.
Second Amendment is being nibbled on. https://rumble.com/v27rqxa-second-amendment-under-siege.html?mref=9yobh&mc=2cpbn . Mark Levin on the second amendment. Love that guy.
-
I'm all for assuming that a crime victim's identified group and the alleged perpetrator's intent makes the crime victim more dead, more raped, more battered, or more tortured.
C'mon, Professor. You're an attorney. You know that intent matters in criminal law. Why exclude intent when it's hate?
-
The Bill of Rights is an idea or a piece of paper.
So is every court ruling.
If not respected they have no value. Same idea as the Order of Protection that only works for those who screwed up but are normally law abiding.
A violation of an OOP is a crime. So yes, that "piece of paper" matters.
Do you really not see the erosion ? to the Bill of Rights which you sound like you support as i do. The guy who did win but was arrested for joking about covid 19 .
We're not talking about being arrested for making jokes. We're talking about a person who committed a crime, and their underlying motive was hateful.
-
I'm all for assuming that a crime victim's identified group and the alleged perpetrator's intent makes the crime victim more dead, more raped, more battered, or more tortured.
C'mon, Professor. You're an attorney. You know that intent matters in criminal law. Why exclude intent when it's hate?
I understand mens rea from the standpoint of intent to do an act, not as intent to have a feeling
-
I understand mens rea from the standpoint of intent to do an act, not as intent to have a feeling
NYS penal law has 240.26 harassment 2 as "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person" (does annoying thing), which is a violation.
It also has 240.30, aggravated harassment 2 "With the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct;" This is an A misdemeanor.
Specific intent can be an aggravating factor. This isn't a First Amendment issue.
-
The Bill of Rights is an idea or a piece of paper.
So is every court ruling.
If not respected they have no value. Same idea as the Order of Protection that only works for those who screwed up but are normally law abiding.
A violation of an OOP is a crime. So yes, that "piece of paper" matters.
Do you really not see the erosion ? to the Bill of Rights which you sound like you support as i do. The guy who did win but was arrested for joking about covid 19 .
We're not talking about being arrested for making jokes. We're talking about a person who committed a crime, and their underlying motive was hateful.
I am surprised you do not see the "slippery slope" . Taking this to a Bible lesson .... HOw many times did the Israelites mess up because they did not do ALL God told them to? They kept some spoils of war which caused huge problems. Erosion hits like the frog in the pot.
-
I am surprised you do not see the "slippery slope" .
I am surprised that you do see a "slippery slope". Nobody is criminalizing speech. What is being criminalized is stated intent prior to the commission of a crime. Why you're trying to run interference for this sort of riff raff is beyond me.
Taking this to a Bible lesson ....
No, let's not.
-
I understand mens rea from the standpoint of intent to do an act, not as intent to have a feeling
NYS penal law has 240.26 harassment 2 as "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person" (does annoying thing), which is a violation.
It also has 240.30, aggravated harassment 2 "With the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct;" This is an A misdemeanor.
Specific intent can be an aggravating factor. This isn't a First Amendment issue.
I understand the law
I also think the legal philosophy behind it is insane
-
I also think the legal philosophy behind it is insane
An opinion that you are entitled to.
-
If I plan to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, but I never take any action to do so, why should this be a crime?
If I murder someone because they are a left-handed red headed Antarctican transvestite midget Republican, and I hate them because of it, are they any more dead because of my mental state before the deed?
-
I am surprised you do not see the "slippery slope" .
I am surprised that you do see a "slippery slope". Nobody is criminalizing speech. What is being criminalized is stated intent prior to the commission of a crime. Why you're trying to run interference for this sort of riff raff is beyond me.
Taking this to a Bible lesson ....
No, let's not.
Simply i believe you are wrong on this subject.
-
If I plan to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, but I never take any action to do so, why should this be a crime?
C'mon, you know better than this. We're talking about situations where a crime was committed.
If I murder someone because they are a left-handed red headed Antarctican transvestite midget Republican, and I hate them because of it, are they any more dead because of my mental state before the deed?
Again, we have instances in penal law codes where the specific intent of the criminal act is an aggravating factor in how it is charged.
-
Simply i believe you are wrong on this subject.
An opinion that you are entitled to.
-
I am surprised that you do see a "slippery slope". Nobody is criminalizing speech. What is being criminalized is stated intent prior to the commission of a crime. Why you're trying to run interference for this sort of riff raff is beyond me.
Yeah, I spend a lot of time wondering what factors are responsible for what seems to be the growing popularity of this position on hate crimes...I even wonder if the position is growing in popularity or if people just feel more comfortable expressing these opinions. I think it is rooted in bigotry, but of course I think so many things are rooted in bigotry...maybe i'm wrong and the reasons are actually mysterious, but I highly doubt it.
-
Yeah, I spend a lot of time wondering what factors are responsible for what seems to be the growing popularity of this position on hate crimes...I even wonder if the position is growing in popularity or if people just feel more comfortable expressing these opinions.
I think some people who are free speech absolutists conflate this with an attack on free speech. Which I find baffling, because no one is talking about criminalizing speech. It the intent of an already criminal act that's the subject here.
I think it is rooted in bigotry, but of course I think so many things are rooted in bigotry...maybe i'm wrong and the reasons are actually mysterious, but I highly doubt it.
Yes, unfortunately many people do take advantage of free speech to express their bigotry. As a free speech absolutist myself, I grant that they certainly have that right.
-
Yes, unfortunately many people do take advantage of free speech to express their bigotry. As a free speech absolutist myself, I grant that they certainly have that right.
On this point we totally agree :)
-
I think some people who are free speech absolutists conflate this with an attack on free speech. Which I find baffling, because no one is talking about criminalizing speech. It the intent of an already criminal act that's the subject here.
Well, yes, a popular formulation of the argument is festooned in free speech dressing. I'd argue that you find it plainly obvious that the argument has nothing to do with free speech because the argument actually has nothing to do with free speech.
Yes, unfortunately many people do take advantage of free speech to express their bigotry. As a free speech absolutist myself, I grant that they certainly have that right.
Of course we all have the right, only a <insert monster here> would disagree with that. This imo has to have made some contribution into why it has grown the legs that it has. Protecting free speech is not the point, it's merely the delivery mechanism. Maybe that sounds paranoid, but no one can ever accuse me of not wasting huge amounts of my time paying attention to what people that I disagree with are saying, and how they are choosing to say it.
-
Well, yes, a popular formulation of the argument is festooned in free speech dressing. I'd argue that you find it plainly obvious that the argument has nothing to do with free speech because the argument actually has nothing to do with free speech.
Correct.
Of course we all have the right, only a <insert monster here> would disagree with that. This imo has to have made some contribution into why it has grown the legs that it has. Protecting free speech is not the point, it's merely the delivery mechanism.
Also correct.
Maybe that sounds paranoid, but no one can ever accuse me of not wasting huge amounts of my time paying attention to what people that I disagree with are saying, and how they are choosing to say it.
I too pay attention to those who speak badly, particularly about a certain religious minority. It's the same things they've been saying for millennia, but it always bears noting.
-
I too pay attention to those who speak badly, particularly about a certain religious minority. It's the same things they've been saying for millennia, but it always bears noting.
Ain't that the truth, you'd think after all this time they would do something other than remix the same tunes. anyway, good talk. See you around.
-
anyway, good talk. See you around.
Same. Carry on.
-
"A very large portion of my party really doesn't believe in the Constitution,” Mitt Romney told writer McKay Coppins as part of his forthcoming biography.
-
I’m shocked. Shocked, I say.
-
"A very large portion of my party really doesn't believe in the Constitution,” Mitt Romney told writer McKay Coppins as part of his forthcoming biography.
This is Mitt Romney after all, so we need context. Is he talking about the 1st Amendment or the 14th?
-
"A very large portion of my party really doesn't believe in the Constitution,” Mitt Romney told writer McKay Coppins as part of his forthcoming biography.
This is Mitt Romney after all, so we need context. Is he talking about the 1st Amendment or the 14th?
A statement made during the aftermath of Jan 6:.
Mr. Romney come to a demoralizing conclusion a few months after the Jan. 6 attack. “A very large portion of my party really doesn’t believe in the Constitution,” he said.
Jan 6 and subsequent GOP reaction was the context.
-
A statement made during the aftermath of Jan 6:.
Mr. Romney come to a demoralizing conclusion a few months after the Jan. 6 attack. “A very large portion of my party really doesn’t believe in the Constitution,” he said.
Jan 6 and subsequent GOP reaction was the context.
Well, that's why he's the Democrat's favorite Republican. He enjoys attacking his own party. Plenty of Democrats don't respect the Constitution, I'm waiting for him to call them out on it.
-
"A very large portion of my party really doesn't believe in the Constitution,” Mitt Romney told writer McKay Coppins as part of his forthcoming biography.
This is Mitt Romney after all, so we need context. Is he talking about the 1st Amendment or the 14th?
A statement made during the aftermath of Jan 6:.
Mr. Romney come to a demoralizing conclusion a few months after the Jan. 6 attack. “A very large portion of my party really doesn’t believe in the Constitution,” he said.
Jan 6 and subsequent GOP reaction was the context.
I am watching the series Shadowland (https://chicago.suntimes.com/movies-and-tv/2022/9/21/23363118/shadowland-review-peacock-documentary-series-conspiracy-theory-qanon-zach-vorhies-pauline-bauer), hard to watch, only 1 episode a day, it seems Mr. Romney is right.
-
"A very large portion of my party really doesn't believe in the Constitution,” Mitt Romney told writer McKay Coppins as part of his forthcoming biography.
This is Mitt Romney after all, so we need context. Is he talking about the 1st Amendment or the 14th?
A statement made during the aftermath of Jan 6:.
Mr. Romney come to a demoralizing conclusion a few months after the Jan. 6 attack. “A very large portion of my party really doesn’t believe in the Constitution,” he said.
Jan 6 and subsequent GOP reaction was the context.
I am watching the series Shadowland (https://chicago.suntimes.com/movies-and-tv/2022/9/21/23363118/shadowland-review-peacock-documentary-series-conspiracy-theory-qanon-zach-vorhies-pauline-bauer), hard to watch, only 1 episode a day, it seems Mr. Romney is right.
I hadn't heard about Shadowland until you posted it, I Just watched the first three episodes...you are right, I do not recommend more than 1 per sitting. Anyway thanks for bringing it to my attention.
-
I am watching the series Shadowland (https://chicago.suntimes.com/movies-and-tv/2022/9/21/23363118/shadowland-review-peacock-documentary-series-conspiracy-theory-qanon-zach-vorhies-pauline-bauer), hard to watch, only 1 episode a day, it seems Mr. Romney is right.
I hadn't heard about Shadowland until you posted it, I Just watched the first three episodes...you are right, I do not recommend more than 1 per sitting. Anyway thanks for bringing it to my attention.
It's not any different here only on a much smaller (95%) scale, USA ~340M citizens, Netherlands ~17M.
We witnessed the leader of the then biggest political party fall into conspiracies, 9/11 inside job, no moon landing, world ruled by serpents disguised as a human, climate change is nonsense, covid is nonsense, Putin is a nice guy. Apparently intelligence is not a safe guard. What me wonder, what is it that one person is more receptive for conspiracies than the other. What do they have in common? And I don't mean those who made a living from spreading conspiracies, but the victims.
It's probably a mix of things, the reporters made some good points.
-
A statement made during the aftermath of Jan 6:.
Mr. Romney come to a demoralizing conclusion a few months after the Jan. 6 attack. “A very large portion of my party really doesn’t believe in the Constitution,” he said.
Jan 6 and subsequent GOP reaction was the context.
Well, that's why he's the Democrat's favorite Republican. He enjoys attacking his own party. Plenty of Democrats don't respect the Constitution, I'm waiting for him to call them out on it.
Yes, not respecting the constitution is one thing but Romney was addressing the strong allegations of a conspiracy to overthrow the election, thus, to overthrow the constitution.
If the allegations are proven true, we have concerted treason. Where, I ask, is the GOP outcry against this blatant usurpation of our constitution, and the rebuke of it's ringleaders?
-
What me wonder, what is it that one person is more receptive for conspiracies than the other.
Reply to self, because I once to my own disgust fell into a conspiracy myself. There was this day when I saw the murdering of ~2000 people live on my television when the towers fell. The days after television remained on till late in the morning watching everything in bewilderment. No conspiracy thoughts then.
A few months later the New York Times on the front-page peaked in a big font size : Bush Knew accusing the administration of an inside job. I could not ignore that.
And so I dived into the alternative media, reading, reading and reading and came to the conclusion the NYT was right. Long story short, it took me 6-9 months to wade and see through the monstrous volume of data, false so called facts, deliberate lies and came back to my senses.
The moral, so in my case all that was needed was a big shocking event + a message from a MSM paper which I normally trust (certainly with this kind of mind blowing content) to turn me into an idiot.
Now life is full of shocking events, covid was a big one, but so can be big disappointments experiences in the widest sense of the word and can make people vulnerable for alternatives that proclaim truth, friendship.
-
Yes, not respecting the constitution is one thing but Romney was addressing the strong allegations of a conspiracy to overthrow the election
Which is just silly.
-
There was no conspiracy
Geez Louise
The system worked just fine despite a bunch of uneducated people wishing that it didn’t
-
There was no conspiracy
Because it's not a proper conspiracy without involving the Jews. Or the Templars.
-
There was no conspiracy
Because it's not a proper conspiracy without involving the Jews. Or the Templars.
Exactly…
Just don’t tell me all of the goodies that Mrs. Fenris fixed for dinner last night…
-
Just don’t tell me all of the goodies that Mrs. Fenris fixed for dinner last night…
Our family customarily breaks fasts on bagels. :)
-
Just don’t tell me all of the goodies that Mrs. Fenris fixed for dinner last night…
Our family customarily breaks fasts on bagels. :)
Yum... I'm jiggy wid it.
Anything special planned for Sukkot?
-
Anything special planned for Sukkot?
Sukkah not up yet, but soon. We're having some nice guests, including my son from the Holy Land.
-
Excellent.
Haven't talked to my baby brother lately (stationed at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv)... I wonder if he's getting any invites for some festive outdoor dining with his Israeli counterparts?
Always good to have family visit.
Shalom
-
Haven't talked to my baby brother lately (stationed at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv)...
Nice!
-
He’s senior military attaché
Probably knows way too much
😳
-
He’s senior military attaché
Ooo! You know the coolest people. :)
-
He’s senior military attaché
Ooo! You know the coolest people. :)
Yeah! Sort of proud of the squirt.
He’s thirteen years younger and I used to change the Colonel’s diapers’
😳
-
There was no conspiracy
Geez Louise
The system worked just fine despite a bunch of uneducated people wishing that it didn’t
Don't you see the increasing number of conspiracy theorists (thanks to social media) as a threat to democracy?
-
No
If the collective is not smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff then they aren’t smart enough to govern themselves.
And I hate democracies…
-
Don't you see the increasing number of conspiracy theorists (thanks to social media) as a threat to democracy?
No
-
Hitler played the Church before commencing to destroy it.
-
There is nothing either Christian or nationalist about the groups or persons self identifying or identified as Christian Nationalists
Neither Jesus nor the founding fathers would claim them